Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 337, a revised version of the same resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 337, a revised version of the same resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I know he personally believes in the original resolution. Before I get into the disparities between the two resolutions and some of the difficulty we have had over the last several days in trying to pass this resolution, it is important to understand how reprehensible these statements are and how dangerous they are in light of not only the conflicts within the Middle East but the frightening perspective of Iran having nuclear capabilities.
We hear mixed reports. We have heard reports from the overseas press in the last few weeks about fears that Iran is actually within months, potentially, of having nuclear weapons capability. The idea that a country with a President who says that Israel should be wiped off the map and then amends the statement, if you can call it that, to say, Well, maybe they could move it to Europe, Germany or Austria, as Charles Krauthammer recently noted:
. . . perhaps near the site of an old concentration camp.
This is the kind of ridiculous statement one would expect out of a street merchant who is out there spewing anti-Semitic statements but not from the President of a country. It is unbelievable. As unbelievable as that statement is, it is almost equally unbelievable, the silence of response from the civilized world in condemning this statement and calling for actions on the part of the United Nations to condemn Iran, sanction Iran, and a whole host of other remedies available.
This condemnation we passed is a mild condemnation. We tried to make it a little stronger. We didn't achieve that. But what we need to recognize is that Iran, as the President has said, is a real threat. It is a real threat because there are people in that country, not the average Iranian but people at the leadership levels of that government who have explicit designs to not only disrupt the process of democracy building in the Middle East but also disrupt any attempt for peace and finally eliminate millions of Israelis from the face of the Earth.
That is something that the civilized world should not stand for. The United Nations should not stand for it, should not countenance the continuation of Iran sitting where they sit without having to undergo some sort of sanction or reprimand.
It is important to understand how destabilizing Iran is in our fight to create stable democracies in the Middle East, how they foment anti- Semitic, anti-Zionist, as well as anti-democratic sentiment in the Middle East, and how they sponsor terrorism.
One of the pieces of legislation I am most proud of in my time in the Senate was the Syrian Accountability Act. Throughout the years, Iranian influence in Lebanon and Syria has oppressed fellow Arabs. Well, Iranians are not Arabs but oppress fellow Muslims and obviously some Christians. But it is important for us, as a Senate, as a people, to understand the threat that Iran poses to everything we believe in and the larger picture of what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq and the Middle East.
We are trying to do something that for a long time people in this country and even some today believe is not possible. Some have suggested we can't win the mission we have engaged in. The mission we have engaged in is to create a stable democracy in the Middle East, in the Arab world. The mission we have engaged in, more fundamentally, is to provide increased national security to this country. That is the first mission.
The strategy is to ensure security for this country. The tactic is to establish democracies in an area of the world that threatened this country. Iran stands starkly opposed to that objective and, further, with statements such as this, destabilizes the entire region and foments and uses sort of the lowest base, primitive instincts of the haters in the Middle East to undermine our objective.
We are succeeding in Iraq in spite of the Iranians. We are succeeding in Afghanistan in spite of the Iranians. We
are moving democracy forward. But we dare not take our eye off what Iran is doing and is preparing. They are actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program under the nose of the rest of the world, with virtually no real attempt to limit that development.
When you see these statements combined with that, it is a flare that should be going up across the world of what we may be confronted with in the next months or years, with a nuclear bomb. This resolution is a statement that needed to be made. I am glad we passed this resolution. But we need to do more. I have authored a piece of legislation on Iran, which calls for the funding of pro-democracy groups within Iran. Others have offered ideas to provide increased sanctions on Iran.
If you look at people who study the country of Iran and tell you--we had a very good hearing that Senator Coburn chaired a few weeks ago. When you listened to the testimony at that hearing, which I had the opportunity to do for a little while, you hear that the Iranian street is one that is largely sympathetic to the United States and to the cause of freedom and democracy. They are oppressed people. Oppressed people generally do want and seek freedom. So we have, I believe, an opportunity, as we have had opportunities in the past, when we lent our ideas and our encouragement to help develop either exile movements or freedom movements within the countries that are a threat to the region and a threat to our country.
It is important for the Senate to speak out and say we stand with you--those of you who seek freedom, those of you who seek democracy, those of you who do not want to be threatening to your neighbors, or say, as the President of Iran has said, he wants to wipe Israel off the map. We have an obligation in the Senate, and I will be pressing very hard next year to pass my legislation on Iran.
I remember several years ago when Senator Boxer and I introduced legislation on Syria, and we did not get a lot of support in the committee and had trouble on the floor of the Senate. We had trouble at the White House. They were opposed to the bill. Eventually, the administration, the committee, and the Senate came along and we were able to pass the Syria Accountability Act. Literally, within a few months, we saw dramatic changes in Lebanon.
The Syria Accountability Act was a measure that called for Syria to get out of Lebanon and imposed sanctions on Syria for not doing so. The President, to my dismay, in some respects, didn't support it at first. Presidents don't often like Congress telling them what to do when it comes to foreign policy. But this President not only signed the Syria Accountability Act, he implemented the sanctions--a tough regime of sanctions--and it had a tremendous effect. I have had people come over from Lebanon and tell me of the importance of that particular legislation and the symbolism of America standing with the people of Lebanon against the evil dictator in Syria.
The symbolism of us passing this resolution today, and the more than the symbolism of passing the Iran Freedom and Support Act, is an important sign in a time now with these kinds of comments that Iran has popped its head up again--its rather unattractive head--in the area of influencing policy in the Middle East. We tried in this resolution to match the language of the Iranian bill I have introduced with the language, as I said, with this resolution, but unfortunately, we were not able to clear that language. I want to read the changes we had to make in the resolved section of the resolution that were struck as unacceptable for us to be able to pass it by unanimous consent. The portions we had to drop were two resolved sections. The three things that are in the final version that passed say:
Resolved, That the Senate
(1) condemns the recent statement by President Ahmadinejad
that denied the occurrence of the Holocaust and supported
moving the State of Israel to Europe;
(2) demands an official apology for these damaging, anti-
Semitic statements that ignore history, human suffering, and
the loss of life during the Holocaust;
(6) reaffirms the need for Iran to
(A) end its support for international terrorism;
(B) join other Middle Eastern countries in seeking a
successful outcome of the Middle East peace process.
What was struck were two sentences:
The Senate supports efforts by the people of Iran to
exercise self-determination over the form of government of
their country.
That was not acceptable to some here in the Senate. And second is:
The Senate supports a national referendum in Iran, with
oversight by international observers and monitors, to certify
the integrity and fairness of the referendum.
So we could not adopt tonight in the Senate the Senate saying to the people of Iran that we support efforts of self-determination and a national referendum that was free and fair. That is, in my mind, a rather unfortunate occurrence. But I found, from my perspective, that it was so important to condemn these actions that we agreed to strike those two sentences from the resolved clauses. I don't necessarily understand why anyone would oppose either of those sentences, those resolved clauses. They state that we are for freedom and democracy for all people, including the people of Iran. Maybe it is because we are pursuing that and it becomes such an issue of partisan controversy in the country of Iraq--or saying we support that same thing in Iran would somehow taint their criticism of the current mission in Iraq. I don't know. I am still groping for answers as to why those two clauses were not acceptable.
What was not acceptable were the comments and the actions of developing nuclear weapons by the terrorist regime in Iran.
I appreciate my colleagues for agreeing to pass this resolution. I thank all of the cosponsors. There were some 20 cosponsors of this resolution. The first Democrat was Senator Mikulski. I also thank my colleague in the chair for his patience and allowing me the opportunity to speak here tonight. He is also a cosponsor of the resolution. No one is a stronger advocate for peace and the mission we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East, and as well for the protection of the state of Israel, than the occupant of the chair. It is a pleasure to have the Senator from Minnesota in the chair while I am delivering these remarks. The Senator from Minnesota is truly one of the great leaders on the Foreign Relations Committee in this regard. I commend him for his efforts. I know he will be working with me on the Iran bill, on which he is a cosponsor, in trying to send a statement from the Senate that Iran is a threat--a real threat--and we need to do something other than simply stand back and jawbone international organizations--feckless international organizations-- in some respects, as the Senator from Minnesota knows, corrupt international organizations--to do something that they have shown no desire, willingness, or ability to accomplish, and that is to spread democracy, to lift people out of bondage into freedom.
We in the United States have to begin to take steps. The steps we are talking about in this resolution and the bill we hope to pass next year are not military steps. That is the last resort. But we need to start acting. Sitting silently by, doing nothing as a crazy man as president of a country, potentially developing nuclear weapons in the most sensitive area of the world is not acceptable for the Senate and is not acceptable for this country.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
